Talk:Chuck Baldwin

In addition to being a political activist, he is also an ordained minister. His activities in that endeavor need to be included to present a complete biography of him.

How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?

The Barack Obama Featured Article, part of this project's scope, now has an important discussion on its talk page (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details) that could affect other articles, including this one, on other presidential candidates. There is already talk on that page that the articles on other presidential candidates may need to be changed, so editors involved in this article may want to get involved with the discussion there.

Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples:

• Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu
• Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (and Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko)
• John McCain and John C. Hagee
• Rudy Giuliani and Bernard Kerik

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles.

If you click on the first link I give here, you'll find a comparison I did of negative information in the Clinton, McCain and Giuliani articles. I've also posted that information on the talk pages of those articles. In that discussion (and at the McCain, Clinton and Giuliani talk pages), I've also posted a comparison of what negative information is presented on each candidate, especially in relation to associates who give the candidates bad publicity. I think editors of this article would find the comparison useful. Noroton (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin', won't do it again (here anyway). Noroton (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Obama knows a lot of embarrassing people, or at least it would appear so from your list. Well done making that point. Jim Lahey (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitic references

I just happened across this column by Chuck Baldwin. Lays it on a bit thick with the antisemitic references, don't you think?

The moneychangers of Jesus' day were the equivalent of the international bankers of our day. With the consent and approbation of the Jewish leaders, these bankers set up shop in the Temple. [...] Of course, the exchange rates benefited only the bankers and Jewish leaders (and Caesar, who collected a tax on the exchange, of course). For everyone else, the system was nothing more than legalized extortion.

Yuck. --FOo (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

FOo, I believe that you may not be correctly apprehending the context of Dr. Baldwin's commentary in that article. The focus is not on the Jewish leaders (specifically, the Sanhedrin and the priests managing the day-to-day affairs of the Temple) but rather on the greediness of the moneychangers themselves. It does allude to the certainty that there was collusion between the moneychangers and the government (i.e. the Sanhedrin, the priests, and Caesar, along with whatever "rake" of the profits that the Roman tax agencies were collecting.

To understand fully what was going on, you may need to know that the moneychangers served a particular purpose: Jews visiting from afar or coming to Jerusalem to observe the seasonal ritual sacrifices had to secure for themselves certain animals or offerings of grain, fruit, etc. to offer to the Lord (YHWH). For obvious reasons, a family making the trip from Corinth or perhaps Rome could not make this trip with the high-quality oxen or sheep without great expense, or bring food offerings without risk of spoilage in a time without refrigeration or other adequate forms of kosher food preservation techniques.

The Jewish pilgrims would then bring gold coin (either in Roman coin or provincial coin) to buy the necessary sacrificial animals or offerings; in order to do this, there was a medium of exchange needed for the various weights and sizes of coins transacted into the Jewish and Tyrian coin required for the Temple ceremonies (see Jesus and the money changers for more information on this).

Consider then, that the object of Dr. Baldwin's commentary, as well as the lesson of this incident as recorded in the Bible, was not intended as an anti-Semitic act or even a judgment against the moneychangers on account of their Jewish identity.

The judgment was against the idea of letting greed so completely dominate one's thinking that it corrupts the very purpose for which they conducted their trade: for Jesus's purpose, defiling God's House - the Temple; for Dr. Baldwin's purpose, the pillaging and ongoing violation of American trust by kleptocrat politicians and greedy bankers.

One need to look no further (in the USA) than the ongoing destabilization of the financial system with the nationalization of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and enormous government bailouts of failed corporations; greed threatens to overthrow our economy into years and possibly decades of zero- or negative-growth.

Now if that article by Dr. Baldwin had contained other suspicious verbiage along the lines of "Jewish Bankers" or "International Jewish Consortium" or other baiting words, I would whole-heartedly agree with your assessment. However, the only unfortunate thing that is noteworthy is that the leaders colluding with the moneychangers (who themselves need not necessarily be Jews: for the business was almost certainly conducted in the outermost precinct of the Temple known as "the Court of the Gentiles", due to the strict observance of Jewish law forbidding such conduct in the innner parts of the Temple complex.

I hope this may help set your mind at ease regarding Dr. Baldwin's comments.

Respectfully,

--Onos (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Racism?

Is Chuck Baldwin a white supremacist sympathizer? According to this article, [1], he is a member of the League of the South, which doesn't prove anything on its own, but when you combine that with his frequent contributions to VDARE, the fact that he accepted Jerome Corsi's endorsement, and his previous appearance on The Political Cesspool radio show, Chuck Baldwin starts looking rather "suspicious". I'm not going to add anything to the article yet, but if anyone has a source that either proves or disproves that Baldwin is a racist, that'd be nice. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, keep a watch. 208.102.0.136 (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see this comment. I came here wanting to learn more about Baldwin since Ron Paul endorses him. I do not think it is conclusive that The Political Cesspool is affiliated with white supremacists because the Pew organization says they are. I think a link between Chuck Baldwin and The Political Cesspool article in Wikipedia would be sufficient - and let that article decide what is NPOV and factual about TPC. To mention their opinion here is to infer that Chuck Baldwin is a white supremacist because he appeared there; which itself is a bit of a reach. See the comment above about Associations. Therefore, I removed the sentence and ask that you re-consider before adding the association and conclusion again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.30.193 (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Racist David Horowitz interview

I found a transcript of Baldwin interviewing David Horowitz [2] and I must say I'm quite stunned with how viciously Horowitz was attacking the black community. Baldwin himself wasn't saying anything racist, but he appeared to agree with what Horowitz was saying.

I think that should be mentioned either in this article or in the page on his presidential campaign. I mean, if Baldwin can nod his head and agree with David Horowitz when he begins talking like a Klansman, I think voters need to know that. I know a few (non-racist, libertarian-leaning) people who like Baldwin just because Ron Paul recommended him, but they aren't aware that Baldwin is not a colorblind libertarian; he's a racist theocrat! People need to know these kinds of things before they cast their votes. I've already mentioned on the Bob Barr Presidential Campaign talk page that I was quite impressed with how Bob Barr refused an endorsement and a donation from white-supremacists at Stormfront. Baldwin, it seems, is cut from quite a different cloth, and I think voters in the US need to know this. I'm just unsure of how to incorporate that into his article. Any help would be appreciated. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexist?

I almost couldn't believe it when I read that "A double standard for sexual predators?" crap. I mean, if a 15-year-old girl is "built like a 20-year-old", IS THAT HER FAULT? IS IT???

Besides its usually boys that have a harder time controlling themselves girls are always the ones responsible for saying no. If a boy has a ton of sex they are congradualted but a girl is considered a slut this is a ridiculous double standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.34.96 (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Baldwin is a pig without lipstick.

Needless to say, I think that my additions to this article will spell "the beginning of the end" for this man's candidacy. Who could vote for him after reading all the bilge he's written?

One down, four more Obama opponents to go (yes, I'm an Obama supporter).

Unfortunately, I think it'll be MUCH harder to find incriminating evidence against John McCain...

Stonemason89 (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for your agenda. We are not here to bring the end to anyone's candidacy, nor endorse them. Your views in this statement alone shows to me that you possibly have bias regarding this candidate, and that it might be best for you to not edit the article any longer. Wikipedia has a strict neutrality policy.

Your opinions of Chuck Baldwin also do not belong on this talk page. This talk page is for use of improving this article, not for forwarding your opinions on the subject. This is not an open discussion forum. Please attempt to be neutral and discuss the article, not the subject. The359 (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sections on his political views

An anonymous user tried to remove all my additions to this page re: Baldwin's political views by claiming my page was "biased". He/she overhauled the whole thing and replaced it with a blatantly pro-Baldwin, and much shorter, section. In doing so, he/she removed quite a bit of detail that definitely IS relevant to the article.

If you think there is too much negative information about Baldwin in here, then ADD mitigating information, rather than deleting information that is already on the page. Going in and bulldozing entire sections because you feel uncomfortable about the subject matter is censorship, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Censor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonemason89 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think that my edits were too biased, then please post a message on the talk page explaining why you feel this way. Deleting entire sections without even bothering to discuss your reasons for doing so is cowardly. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentances like "echoing claims made by the Stormfront-operated anti-King website" run into issues with WP:NOR.Geni 01:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

-- I am the anonymous user who made the edits. Stonemason89, your edits to the article are blatantly biased. For example, look at the following reasons you gave to justify some of your edits:

"Apparently, he's a male chauvinist pig; or should I say a pig WITHOUT lipstick?" "Now Baldwin is positively giving me the heebie-jeebies. I can't stand racists" "wow, this Baldwin guy looks really creepy to me. I hope he doesn't win."

These are completely invalid reasons for making edits. Furthermore, these comments are simply cluttering up the history page.

"Deleting entire sections without even bothering to discuss your reasons for doing so is cowardly." -- I explained the reason for my edits far, far better than you explained yours. Making an edit simply to call someone a "male chauvinist pig" is what is cowardly.

You even seem to acknowledge your own bias: "Perhaps I worded that statement a bit too strongly"

Within the article itself, you include tangential information that was included solely for the purpose of biasing the article. Here are several examples:

"He also stated that King spent the night of his murder with two paramours and physically fought with a third[24], echoing claims made by the Stormfront-operated anti-King website" -- Why incorporate this unnecessary information that his views echo those of Stormfront? Should someone go through and draw comparisons between every single fact of the man's life and statements to others' lives and statements?

"Other guests on the show have included David Duke and the neo-Nazi musical duo Prussian Blue (band). The Political Cesspool's host, James Edwards, believes that interracial relationships like those depicted in the movie The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants are a form of "white genocide". [16]" -- So David Duke was a former guest on the show. So what? Since I'm certain that Larry King has probably hosted at least one racist on his show over the years, is every guest thereafter on Larry King Live to be condemned?

With my edit, I was trying to remove the snarky comments and selective quotes like the ones that appear above. As far as I could tell, these comments were included not to provide a thorough understanding of the topic at hand but simply to bias the article. I did indeed remove some of the information entirely from my edit because it was so blatantly biased, but most of the insight provided by the quotes that you included in your earlier edits has been integrated into my description of Baldwin's views. The original quotes may not be there, but the insight provided by these quotes generally remains. I think my edit is valid.

You accuse me of not adding any information. I disagree. For example, on the discussion of Abraham Lincoln, you tried to depict Baldwin as a hypocrite by juxtaposing the "I am like Abraham Lincoln" quote with the "Abraham Lincoln is one of the two worst presidents" quote. After reading the actual articles that you pulled these two quotes from, I realized that you were once again manipulating the information. Therefore, I explained that Baldwin's quote "I am like Abraham Lincoln" quote was simply referring to Baldwin's aspiration of unexpected, sudden electoral success and that Baldwin was *not* comparing his political ideology to that of Lincoln. In other words, I added in a more thorough explanation. The two original quotes themselves were simply superfluous, so I did not include them both; my explanation covered that information and did not need the actual quotes themselves. I did not simply haphazardly hack information out of the article you accuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.197.188 (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit one sided

I came to this page to learn more about Chuck Baldwin. The overwhelming vibe I got from the whole article was very negative. It seems like most of this was written by just one person. I just want to encourage others to add some input to add some diversity. 70.114.137.228 (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)